The competent authority to impose punishment against the Executive Engineer is the Managing Director and not the Director of the Corporation. The violation of the principle of natural justice and the requirement to proceed within a reasonable time after the reply is caused by the delinquent officer can lead to the quashing of the impugned order of punishment.

R. Devdas, J.

The petitioner who was serving at the respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is before this Court assailing the order of punishment imposed by the respondents, withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chief Engineer (Electrical) of Bangalore Mega City Block Range communicated to the General Manager of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited on 11.11.2008 that by a report submitted by the vigilance squad it has come to light that one M. Pillappa, Assistant Executive Engineer who was working at 6th North Subdivision BESCOM, Bangalore, has committed certain lapses by not noticing the slow meter reading of a particular installation and as a consequence, the Corporation has suffered financial loss to an extent of Rs.6,00,878/- (Rupees Six lakhs eight hundred and seventy eight only). The said M. Pillappa had retired as on 30.4.2007.

3. The second charge was that M/s. Sheeba Polysacks Private Limited, Bangalore has been provided with 2 meters in the same hall, which is against the norms of supply regulation. Though the Chief Engineer sought action to be initiated against the said M.Pillappa, who was the Assistant Executive Engineer, at the relevant point of time, show-cause notice and charge sheet were issued against the petitioner, along with M. Pillappa.

4. Learned counsel submits that the very same charge which was framed against M.Pillappa was also framed against petitioner. The inquiry was conducted on the basis that the petitioner succeeded M.Pillappa as the Assistant Executive Engineer and therefore he was also guilty of the charges having failed to notice the slow meter reading, after the petitioner took charge as the Assistant Executive Engineer. The inquiry report dated 12.03.2010 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer wherein it has been concluded as follows:-

"While the second part of the charge against the delinquents has been substantiated, I am of the view that the delinquent-I is primarily accountable for the consequences, since the slow reading of the meter occurred during his tenure and continued during the tenure of delinquent-2, whose lapse though accountable should be viewed with lesser severity. Even in the case of delinquent-I the accountability has be shared along with the other employees who were associated with the maintenance of related records with responsibility of keeping the sub-divisional officer informed of the slow reading of the meter in good time. In my view disciplinary action in such a case should more appropriately be taken in a common proceeding so as to afford reasonable opportunity for all involved in the process to get to know the evidence and to defend themselves.

Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, I hold that the charge against each of the delinquents is partly proved."

5. On 24.5.2010, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has caused reply on the very same day. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the tenable reply given by the petitioner, the Director, (Administration and Human Resources) proceeded to pass the impugned order imposing the punishment against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted fact that even as on the day when the second show cause notice was issued, the petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer. It was therefore, contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that as per the regulations, the Disciplinary Authority for Executive Engineer is the Managing Director and not the Director. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the Director who is not the Disciplinary Authority could not have passed an order of punishment.

7. Secondly, it was submitted the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer clearly held M.Pillappa guilty of the charges and specifically recommended that the lapses on the part of petitioner, though accounta